When the Constitution gets in Pelosi's way, she'll just ignore it....

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Harvey I dont care which side used it and how many times. Its wrong. Its wrong for anyone who uses it. Its unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional then, and its unconstitutional now.

Can show us statute or precedent to establish that it's unconstitutional? :confused:

If so, maybe we can overturn the onerous laws Republicans passed using self-executing rules, including the Bushwhackos' tax cuts for the wealthy and the gaping loopholes they put in lobbying and ethics reform bills to protect their wealthy overlords. :thumbsup:

If not, thanks for playing. :cool:
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Can show us statute or precedent to establish that it's unconstitutional? :confused:

If so, maybe we can overturn the onerous laws Republicans passed using self-executing rules, including the Bushwhackos' tax cuts for the wealthy and the gaping loopholes they put in lobbying and ethics reform bills to protect their wealthy overlords. :thumbsup:

If not, thanks for playing. :cool:

I cannot point you to a precedent, but I can point you to Article 1 of the constitution. I believe sections 5 and 7 deal with this.

*edit*

My memory isn't so bad!

Article 1, Section 5

"Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

Article 1, Section 7

"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."


Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Harvey, I'm not trying to be a partisan asshole with this. Politics aside with the healthcare debate, I believe that the Constitution should ALWAYS be adhered to. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There should be no special rules to get around what our founding fathers wanted, on either side of the aisle. If they passed healthcare using constitutional rules, fine. I wouldnt be happy about it, but thats the American way. My blood boils when I see stuff like what the House is proposing, where they dont vote on it, they just magically deem it passed. Its unconstitutional, clear cut. Its wrong.
 
Last edited:

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
I cannot point you to a precedent, but I can point you to Article 1 of the constitution. I believe sections 5 and 7 deal with this.I cannot point you to a precedent, but I can point you to Article 1 of the constitution. I believe sections 5 and 7 deal with this.

*edit*

My memory isn't so bad!

Article 1, Section 5

"Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

Article 1, Section 7

"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

No. The self-executing rule is analogous to a valid provisional contract in law in which the stipulated actions or obligations of one party become binding contingent on the performance of specified actions of the other party or on the occurance of any other specified condition or event.

The exact text of the House bill amending the Senate version of the bill will be published and known before the vote is taken. Among its provisions will be passage of the Senate bill, as written and published, contingent on the Senate passing the companion bill amending the Senate bill. There will be NO vote on any part of those bills without all parties knowing exactly what will be passed, and no part of the legislation will be enacted without being passed by a majority of both houses of Congress.

Exactly which part of a self-executing rule doesn't conform to the Constitutional sections you quote?

If you still believe it is unconstitutional, would you also agree with my previous suggestion that all previous laws enacted through a self-executing rule should be overturned, including the onerous laws Republicans passed using self-executing rules like the Bushwhackos' tax cuts for the wealthy and the gaping loopholes they put in lobbying and ethics reform bills to protect their wealthy overlords?
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Exactly which part of a self-executing rule doesn't conform to the Constitutional sections you quote?

The constitution clearly states that a vote will be taken and names recorded prior to a bill becoming law.

How exactly is a rule that says there is a vote constitute an actual vote?

Then again, it was the "progressives" that gave us the idea that lack of interstate commerce constitutes interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by the federal government.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
No, the second bill is not an "amendment." Amendment is a Congressional term of art. It means a modification of a bill that is in process, not a law which is on the books. The second bill is, rather, another bill entirely, which happens to modify an existing law. Such a thing can be done contemporaneous to the first piece of legislation, or 10 years later.

The trouble is, IF the first news report I read is correct and the core bill will only be deemed passed IF the reconciliation bill passes FIRST, then technically the reconciliation bill is modifying a bill which doesn't yet exist. What I'm saying is that I don't know if it's kosher to pass the reconciliation bill first in time because the bill is technically meaningless without the first bill already having been enacted into law. Actually, I can see the argument of treating it as an amendment if it is handled this way, because the core bill would still be a bill and not yet a law.

Which leads me to conclude that the second news report I read is actually the correct one - that the House will vote directly to pass the reconciliation bill and to have the core bill immediately "deemed passed." That means when the reconciliation bill hits the Senate, the Senate's core bill will already be a law on the books.
-snip-

wolf

I have tried to point out in my posts above that a bill is not "a law on the books" until signed by the President. Do you disagree with that?

If not (i.e., it's not "law"), how would that change your analysis?

Fern
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The constitution clearly states that a vote will be taken and names recorded prior to a bill becoming law.

How exactly is a rule that says there is a vote constitute an actual vote?

Then again, it was the "progressives" that gave us the idea that lack of interstate commerce constitutes interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by the federal government.

A recorded vote is not required. article 1 section 7 was misquoted above out of context, it refers to a vote to override a presidential veto, not all votes.

The vote to give the House rules commitee it's authority is subject to the 20&#37; quorum requirement for a recorded vote, but then a rule can be written to not require a recorded vote subsequently.

So it isn't unconstitutional at all.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
A recorded vote is not required. article 1 section 7 was misquoted above out of context, it refers to a vote to override a presidential veto, not all votes.

The vote to give the House rules commitee it's authority is subject to the 20&#37; quorum requirement for a recorded vote, but then a rule can be written to not require a recorded vote subsequently.

So it isn't unconstitutional at all.

Actually, it was not quoted out of context. Here is the entire thing:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


Nice thing about the constitution is its very simple
 
Last edited:

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Before I get accused of quoting out of context article 5, here is the full thing:



Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
The constitution clearly states that a vote will be taken and names recorded prior to a bill becoming law.

I know you didn't read my post, or you'd know that that's exactly what will happen. The relevant section of my previous post:

The exact text of the House bill amending the Senate version of the bill will be published and known before the vote is taken. Among its provisions will be passage of the Senate bill, as written and published, contingent on the Senate passing the companion bill amending the Senate bill. There will be NO vote on any part of those bills without all parties knowing exactly what will be passed, and no part of the legislation will be enacted without being passed by a majority of both houses of Congress.

The exact text of the Senate version of the bill are incorporated by reference in the House reconciliation bill, and the names and the votes of every Representative voting on the bill will be recorded.

The same is true in the Senate. The names and the votes of every Senator voting on the bill will be recorded knowing that the Senate version of the bill will not be deemed to be passed by the house unless and until they also pass the House reconcilation bill, including the self-executing rule.

Neither bill will be passed by anything less than a recorded majority vote, and both bills must pass for either to be enacted.

You can live in your own world with your own version of the Constitution, but you can't change that, fact IF both houses pass both bills, they will become law when Obama signs them.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Its almost like BHO is TRYING to be a one-term President.. Maybe because he knows he is in over his head so he is trying to bow out gracefully without looking even more like a fool?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Actually, it was not quoted out of context. Here is the entire thing:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
"in all such Cases" meaning in all cases pertaining to overriding a Presidential veto or in all cases pertaining to passing a bill. I'm thinking its the former.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Neither bill will be passed by anything less than a recorded majority vote, and both bills must pass for either to be enacted.

in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays

If the Democrats use the "Slaughter" strategy, who exactly will be casting the Teas and Nays for the Senate legislation....the Tooth Fairy?

You can live in your own world with your own version of the Constitution, but you can't change that, fact IF both houses pass both bills, they will become law when Obama signs them.

If Obama signed some toilet paper does that make it a law as well?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
If the Democrats use the "Slaughter" strategy, who exactly will be casting the Teas and Nays for the Senate legislation....the Tooth Fairy?

I don't believe the word, "slaughter" has any legal meaning or even meaningful relationship to this act. It's just one more meaningless talking point scare word being bandied about by Republican fear mongers who have no facts and less integrity on which to base their opposition.

If Obama signed some toilet paper does that make it a law as well?

Is that a trick question? :confused:

Ask us about that when it really happens. Until then, it's just more of the same tired, meaningless drivel having no relationship to the bill.

---
Fear No Evil said:
ObamaBigAssMistakeAmerika

Fear Evoking Absurd Reactionary Nonsense Obviously Entirely Void In Logic
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I don't believe the word, "slaughter" has any legal meaning or even meaningful relationship to this act. It's just one more meaningless talking point scare word being bandied about by Republican fear mongers who have no facts and less integrity on which to base their opposition.

FWIW, it's called "Slaughter" solution because the Chair of the Rules Committee is Louise Slaughter. I.e., this rule or maneuver is named after her because she's the one who's is responsible for it.

The MSM came up with the term, for understandable reasons, not the Repubs.

Fern
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
FWIW, it's called "Slaughter" solution because the Chair of the Rules Committee is Louise Slaughter. I.e., this rule or maneuver is named after her because she's the one who's is responsible for it.

The MSM came up with the term, for understandable reasons, not the Repubs.

Fern

You sure that the MSM came up with the term, rather than having gotten it from the repubs? You may be right, but it's absurd either way to refer to it as "the Slaughter rule" when it has been used over 200 times in the past before Louise Slaughter was even seated in the House. BTW, I note that John Boehner has taken to referring to is as the "Slaughter House Rule." Note the play on words.

Neither version is particularly illuminating, or remotely accurate.

- wolf
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Idaho just took the necessary steps to exempt the residents of the state from any Obamacare requirements. They passed a bill against health care reform on a national level. Similar legislation is pending in 37 states.

This bill will be tied up in the courts for years. I'm wondering if the tax increases will go into effect regardless? We were going to pay for 6 years of coverage with 10 years of taxes anyway.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,518
592
126
Don't worry...if there is any hocus pocus the Supreme Court will strike it down.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
FWIW, it's called "Slaughter" solution because the Chair of the Rules Committee is Louise Slaughter. I.e., this rule or maneuver is named after her because she's the one who's is responsible for it.

Thanks for the correction. I stand better informed. :thumbsup:
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
The Chicago way ... stacking the deck.

eh, that's gratuitous... the sitting pres gets to appoint, no problem with that...

as for stevens, tho, the senile old prick should have left years ago... there should be a retirement age for justices... at least o'connor had some class and retired before she was drooling and veg'd...
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
eh, that's gratuitous... the sitting pres gets to appoint, no problem with that...

as for stevens, tho, the senile old prick should have left years ago... there should be a retirement age for justices... at least o'connor had some class and retired before she was drooling and veg'd...
Please give the memo to Rob Zombie Byrd too.